Judgment 372
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The privileges at issue derive from the headquarters agreement and have been expressly granted in the interests of the organisation. "Hence, according to the terms of the agreement [...] the privileges granted [...] and now claimed by the complainant were not a personal right, and so could not have been of decisive importance to him when he accepted appointment. Furthermore, he may not rely on an express guarantee in his contract; "new staff members should [...] have realised that the benefits depended" on an agreement with a state which could be amended at any time. He may not rely on an acquired right.
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; headquarters agreement; international instrument; member state; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; provision; terms of appointment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A right is acquired when he who has it may require that it be respected notwithstanding any amendment to the Rules. It may be either a right which is laid down in a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules and which is of decisive importance to a candidate for appointment, or a right which arises under an express or implied provision of an official's contract of appointment and which the parties intend should be inviolate."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; definition; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 371
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"When the provisions governing the staff of an organisation are embodied in internal rules or in an international agreement, they have been adopted by the representatives of the States members of that organisation and their purpose is to govern conditions in the international civil service. Hence, by analogy, just as the Tribunal may decide not to apply a provision of the Staff Regulations in a particular case, so it may decide not to apply a clause of an international agreement."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; provision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; definition; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The provisions which lay down the conditions governing promotion do not confer any acquired rights on a staff member because, when he takes up his appointment, he cannot foresee how he will fare in his career. On the contrary, those provisions are subject to amendment and the staff member must expect such amendment."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; career; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 370
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The decision not to promote the complainant is a matter of discretion. In this case, the Tribunal notes that the Director-General did not abuse his discretionary authority. "Moreover, the effects of the decision not to promote the complainant derive from the relevant rules. However detrimental the complainant may find them, they afford no reason for promoting him."
Keywords:
discretion; enforcement; judicial review; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 369
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; definition; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal is not competent to hear an application for the repeal or amendment of Staff Regulations or Rules. "The Tribunal is, however, competent to consider whether a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules applies to an individual case. It is true that it will then be determining the meaning and scope of a general and abstract provision; in doing so, however, it is merely passing preliminary judgment so that it may decide an individual case which does come within the scope of its competence."
Keywords:
application for quashing; competence of tribunal; enforcement; iloat statute; injury; judicial review; provision;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Vide Judgment 371, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 371
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; provision;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"An acquired right might be established in the present case only if, either expressly or by implication, for example in the light of conclusive evidence, the complaint's contract of appointment had guaranteed the benefits he is claiming. [...] He cannot rely on any clause in his contract: there is no express guarantee."
Keywords:
acquired right; condition; contract; provision;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, considerations 5 and 6.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; headquarters agreement; international instrument; member state; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; provision; terms of appointment;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal's Statute limits its competence to review of individual cases. "Hence the Tribunal may not hear an application for the repeal or amendment of a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules. If it heard such a complaint it would be passing judgment on matters which fall outside the context of an individual case and would therefore be exceeding the competence conferred on it by its Statute."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; application for quashing; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 368
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; definition; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 371, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 371
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; provision;
Judgment 366
41st Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A right is acquired when he who has it may require that it be respected notwithstanding any amendment to the rules. In particular, it may be either a right which arises under an official's contract of appointment and which both parties intend should be inviolate, or a right which is laid down in a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules and which is of decisive importance to a candidate for appointment."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; definition; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainants take exception, not to the conclusion of the integration agreement, but to the application of some of its provisions. since those provisions are the same in kind as the Staff Regulations of an organisation there is no bar to the complainants' appealing to the Tribunal against the application of those provisions: according to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal hears 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations [...].'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; merger; provision;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Where a provision of the Staff Regulations is amended the Tribunal may order the defendant organisation to apply the old text and not the new. So, too, when provisions of staff regulations are amended so as to comply with clauses in an international agreement(*) the Tribunal may order the application of the former rather than the latter" and is therefore competent. (*) which provides for the IPI's integration in the EPO
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; merger; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he acquired right to promotion is merely the possibility of advancement because it is only on the strength of such a possibility that a staff member may have accepted appointment. The provisions which lay down the conditions governing promotion do not confer any acquired rights on a staff member because, when he takes up his appointment, he cannot foresee how he will fare in his career. On the contrary, those provisions are subject to amendment and the staff member must expect such amendment."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; career; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 365
41st Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Vide Judgment 366, consideration 6.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; definition; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Vide Judgment 366, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; merger; provision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 366, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; merger; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Vide Judgment 366, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; career; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 357
41st Session, 1978
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
One may ask whether the application of the former text is "warranted by the rule precluding retroactivity, which removes from the ambit of new law facts and events which were completed by the time that law came into force. Insofar as the accumulated annual leave in the present case became due before [the implementation of the new provision], is there not a completed set of facts which [...] continues to be subject to the former law ?" The Tribunal need not settle the point.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; general principle; non-retroactivity; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"A staff member may derive an acquired right either from a clause of his contract of appointment or from a provision of the Staff Regulations or the Staff Rules which was important enough to affect the mind of the ordinary applicant when he was considering joining the staff of the organisation." [In the instant case, the provision on compensation for accumulated leave was modified; but there is nothing to suggest that an applicant for a position on the staff would have joined the organisation in reliance on the earlier rule.]
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; commutation of accrued leave; contract; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 349
40th Session, 1978
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"The complainant can only claim overtime in accordance with his contract and his contract was never amended. [...] The complainant cannot base a separate claim for overtime on a provision that was not a term of his contract [...]."
Keywords:
condition; contract; overtime; payment; provision; right;
Judgment 339
40th Session, 1978
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
There is a clause in the contract which provides that the employment may be terminated by either party upon written notice of two weeks. "The organization contends that if the appointment had been made, it could and would have terminated it by giving a fortnight's notice and accordingly that the indemnity payable to the complainant should be calculated on the loss of two weeks' employment. In the opinion of the Tribunal good faith would forbid the use of a clause of this type simply for the purpose of destroying the contract. There must be reasonable grounds to justify a premature termination."
Keywords:
contract; enforcement; good faith; notice; offer withdrawn; organisation; provision; termination of employment;
Judgment 322
39th Session, 1977
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Although the complainant has himself come before the Tribunal, he challenges its competence. [The organisation] conferred on the [...] Tribunal [...] under [its] Staff Regulations competence to hear disputes relating to non-observance, in substance or in form, of those Staff Regulations. The International Labour Organisation accepted that recognition of competence in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Hence the [...] competence derives from an international agreement which takes precedence over rules [*] unilaterally adopted earlier by one of the parties [...]."
[*] The Eurocontrol International Convention recognises the competence of national courts.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; difference; international instrument; organisation; precedence of rules; provision;
Judgment 319
39th Session, 1977
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
FAO Manual Section 311.112 provides for the possibility of a staff member's status at the time of recruitment to be modified at a later stage. In context this "is an introductory provision or recital to be distinguished from an operative rule; it is informative and not normative. This is shown also by its language. It neither itself requires anything to be done nor confers a power of command on any person. It is merely pointing out [...] that a change of status may be caused by a number of factors [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 311.112 FAO MANUAL
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; condition; criteria; local status; non-local status; provision; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 292
38th Session, 1977
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The question before the Tribunal is whether a document intended to determine how the provisions of a rule are to be applied may impose conditions not in the original rule. The Tribunal holds that it may not.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; enforcement; precedence of rules; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"If it is to be granted that the power to make a rule must embrace a power to amend it, then the Director-General could unilaterally amend Rule No. 7, but only by the exercise of his rule-making power. There is no document in the dossier [which explicitly shows him to have exercised] such a power."
Keywords:
adoption; amendment to the rules; competence; decision-maker; executive head; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In the absence of [words to that effect] it is not [...] to be supposed that the power to amend [the] rule [respecting conditions of remuneration] is one which the Director-General can delegate. [The material provision] specifies that in individual cases the application of staff regulations may be delegated, but there is no similar provision in respect of the making of general rules."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence; delegated authority; no provision; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The instructions "take the form of a new and contradictory text; they do not make it clear what part of the old text is superseded and what part retained. [...] The fact [...] that documents were being signed indiscriminately by the Director-General and the director p. and a. strongly suggests that the formality appropriate to an amendment was not being contemplated at all. The fact that language appropriate to amendment was not being used suggests the same thing. [...] The effect of the instructions is not to amend [the] article but to apply its provisions."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; effect; enforcement; formal requirements; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The article was amended by an office note. "The complainant's request for an interpretation of [the article] is a request for a decision relating to him; it may be made at any time and is not subject to any time limit. [The administration] never gave any decision upon the interpretation of [this] article [...] or upon the relationship to it of the office notices; this [...] is the substantial question in this case."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; decision; failure to answer claim; interpretation; provision; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 25
Extract:
" [I]t is within the power of the Director-General to lay down by means of an instruction criteria for determining what is or is not 'reasonably near', provided that in doing so he has proper regard to the nature and purpose of the [material provision]. [...] He must be guided by accessibility for school children [...] to lay down [...] that for every official [...] every school within a radius of 50 kilometers [...] is to be deemed accessible is not a proper exercise of the power. Accordingly the provision to this effect [...] is not binding upon the complainant."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competence; condition; criteria; education expenses; enforcement; executive head; interpretation; provision; refund; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 285
37th Session, 1976
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that for some years the organisation itself misunderstood the combined effect of [the] articles [in question]. This is not surprising since the relationship between them is obscure; if they are left as they are, others besides the complainant are likely to be misled."
Keywords:
currency of payment; difference; interpretation; pension; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 275
36th Session, 1976
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the decisions of the Director-General were not promotions but reclassifications following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations. These reclassifications "having been delayed for reasons for which the staff members are not responsible should be put into effect at the date on which the complainants took up their duties but, like the Staff Regulations themselves, not before 1 January 1971".
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; date; decision; delay; effective date; enforcement; post classification; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 274
36th Session, 1976
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The elections were postponed by the Election and Referendum Committee following an intervention by the Director-General. "Whatever may be the power under the Staff Regulations, the Statutes, which are the [...] Committee's only source of authority, required quite clearly that the election should be held in January. The Committee may have believed that the Director-General's prerogative enabled him to dispense them from observance of the Statutes, but they cannot [...] have supposed that their action would not meet with criticism and even indignation."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence; date; election; enforcement; executive head; provision; staff regulations and rules; staff representative;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Director-General has [...] under the general rules of the organization disciplinary control over all staff members and he must therefore have inherent power to warn as an alternative to a disciplinary measure and to have the warning put on record; whether or not that is called a reprimand does not matter."
Keywords:
competence; disciplinary measure; executive head; provision; staff regulations and rules; warning;
Judgment 272
36th Session, 1976
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[T]he authority given to the Tribunal by Article II of its Statute is limited to complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. The authority does not extend to the giving of advisory rulings nor to resolving differences in which there is no question of a breach of the terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; enforcement; iloat statute; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 271
36th Session, 1976
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organization contends that when reimbursing travel expenses for home leave account must be taken of costs. "These [...] are questions of policy to be solved before the regulation is framed so that the solution can be embodied in the regulation itself. Once framed, the regulation is conclusive on questions of broad principle and personnel policy. [The Director-General's discretionary authority] to apply it only when he is satisfied that the organization is getting its money's worth cannot be derived from its terms."
Keywords:
amount; discretion; enforcement; home leave; limits; organisation's interest; provision; purpose; refund; staff regulations and rules; travel expenses;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The words [in the material provision] are an abbreviated way of saying that the organization shall pay the reasonable expenses of the journey to and from the home. This means the reasonable expenses for the whole journey and not just a part of it. The Director-General may settle the details of the way in which the regulation is to be applied - he may, for example, rule that reasonable expenses do not cover first-class travel or an indirect route - but he may not alter the sense of it."
Keywords:
amount; home leave; interpretation; organisation's duties; provision; purpose; rate; refund; staff regulations and rules; travel expenses;
Judgment 263
35th Session, 1975
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Director-General may before taking decisions lay down rules for promotion which he notifies to the staff. In formulating the rules the Director-General exercises real discretionary authority; accordingly, when the Tribunal has to determine the validity of such rules its power of review takes the limited form already described.
Keywords:
discretion; flaw; judicial review; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 262
35th Session, 1975
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 263, consideration 2.
Keywords:
discretion; flaw; judicial review; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Director-General informed the staff of the criteria for promotion applicable in 1974. One of these criteria refers to officials who reached a specific step "not later than" 1974. The other material criterion merely refers to those who by 1974 had a certain seniority at another step. "Whether intentional or not, the difference between the two texts does not necessarily mean that the solutions should be different. The solution should nevertheless be based on objective reasons."
Keywords:
consequence; criteria; difference; promotion; provision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he complainant is justified in contending that [two criteria respecting promotion] of the Director-General's circular to the staff are applicable. He is therefore as a matter of course entitled to rely on the provision which is more favourable to him. [T]he former provision is [...] more favourable to the complainant than the latter, which the Director-General was wrong in taking as the basis for his decision. The impugned decision should therefore be reviewed."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; criteria; difference; equal treatment; promotion; provision; right;
